Well, what is it then? We've been at this for 2000 years, we've either found out what this common thread is or we must surely, on pain of pure dogmati...
So... "thanks, but no thanks"? I think there's a lot of confusion in this thread about what Moore's paradox is a paradox of. Here's Wittgenstein And M...
When you go to catch a ball do you 'do the maths' or do you just put your hand where you 'feel' the ball is going to end up? I'd say people listen to ...
These seem like the same issue. One thing that frustrates me about philosophy is that it seems, to my untrained impression, to be sometimes trying to ...
So, to clarify you seem to be saying that there's a mental activity of evaluating behaviours, and that the group we call 'moral behaviours' is a natur...
Maybe, but only in terms of what I intend each to do in the world, not in terms of the objects of reference in each case, the means by which I select ...
Inferences are formed from our perceptions (formed from our senses). Utterances are not the direct result of our senses (except in very rare cases). S...
Well, on pain of being unable ourselves to say what our own utterances are about, it had better be something we have access to during the construction...
Indeed. I could get a dog to bark 'sausages' everytime he's asked 'what's for dinner' but that wouldn't make the dog's utterances any more about my di...
That's just a restatement of your position, not an answer to my critique. If 'you' is a sort of personhood waiting in limbo for a body to become avail...
Yes. That's it. Just like the word 'bully' (which used to mean something more like 'lover'). It would have been wrong to use it to mean 'someone who b...
I don't necessarily think that argument is inconsistent, it just doesn't say anything compelling. You're contriving thus entity 'you' as something tha...
This doesn't even make sense. If you can't define 'you' by a consistent collection of matter, nor by a consistent collection of ideas, then how can yo...
It's no mere predilection, the pay's better. The sum total of which thus far seems to consist only of the scorn of internet philosophers. If there's s...
It's not a question, I'm rebutting your suggestion that it's ludicrous for a non-human to own anything (particularly in relation to the fact that comp...
OK. And who's assuming that? Why not? Ownership of, and responsibilty for, a thing are two different legal states. In a trust, the benefactor owns it,...
Well. Most people have given up on my paragraphs in the time it takes them to read the words (if not before), so I'm charmed by your persistence... In...
That's fine. I shouldn't have got back involved. There are some issues it's interesting to play around with, see what people think, there's others whe...
You didn't ask me where it happened, you asked me where it was possible. That's my point, not yours. That a legal fiction (an association) can own som...
Any country. Firstly, they don't just get to freely decide what to do with the car. They can't, for example, just keep it for personal use, that's emb...
How? Let's say a law exists that says the legal owner of my car is my cat. Another law exists which says that the legal responsibility for anything th...
What else could 'infer' possibly mean other than 'form a belief that...'? So why are we 'inferring' from listening to speech acts, but not 'inferring'...
No, we do different things with some of our desires than we do with language. Calling those desires 'moral's is a linguistic event. It's you talking t...
Ah, OK. Then yes, I'm saying there isn't a difference. In short, morality is a social concept, the language used to describe it is social too and so p...
I think we agree 'bad' doesn't mean anything on its own beyond a vague indication toward a negative. One can be a bad actor, but a good person. One ca...
Because you said In order for the student to merely 'disagree' here, rather than be wrong about the meaning of the term 'morally bad' he must have his...
I'd forgotten about the conservative reification of ownership. No, ownership is itself just a legal status with purely legal implications (none of thi...
Indeed. Distinction is one thing. Labeling one half 'belief' and the other 'truth' is an act of definition. We do not get to just define terms to our ...
No he's not. He's arguing that a CEOs job is soley to make as much money for the company's shareholders, customers and workers as they can within the ...
I can go along with your distinction between 'truths' and 'beliefs' as being the degree of justification, but it's a little too far to say that someon...
It depends what you mean by positivism. I've written quite extensively about model-dependent realism, which (if you take positivism to be naively real...
Seems in contrast with... Perhaps your straw man versions of what you think I think are not quite so robust as you'd like to believe? Perhaps this is....
Well then who are the experts who determine the status of certain behaviours? In Britain, if there's a dispute over the taxonomic status of a plant, a...
So what? You either have the power to influence them in this way (in which case you are the one in power, not them) or you don't, in which case you're...
You're dodging @"Janus"'s question. The point was made that enlightenment principles are simply presented as a 'better' way of dealing with the shared...
You set up your method as an alternative to moral 'right's being determined by whomever has the most power. I'm saying that a direct consequence of th...
You haven't answered the question though. I wanted to know why you confidently allowed the student to have his own private meaning for the term 'moral...
So if, in the first example, the student says"I understand that you think it's 'hitting' to push my fist toward an old lady this way, but I disagree,"...
The class 'good behaviour' has certain membership criteria. That's the same thing as the definition of 'good behaviour'. It's perfect definition is 'e...
I'm not following you so far as mistakes being impossible. If "it's raining" means the same as "I believe it's raining", a 'mistake' is only possible ...
Maybe, but that's because you have the referrents relating to words in English and also beliefs about water in your mind, you could refer to either. Y...
You seem to have just restated your conclusions, I was more wondering how you got there. No bother if they're just basic bedrocks for you, but if not,...
It seems to. If you "need to believe something about the weather to talk about the weather", then it certainly seems to follow that you must be talkin...
It might. But you couldn't talk about it and make any sense. To say "it's raining" requires a referrent for 'raining' to be a property of. To make a c...
Which would update your beliefs about the weather, you could still be mistaken. I didn't say we couldn't. I said no sense could be made of it. Right. ...
We're talking about the absurdity, incoherence or nonsensical nature of the sentence "It's raining but I don't believe it's raining". So the question ...
I'm saying that for it to 'be raining' is someone's belief that it is raining. That's what it means for it to be raining, there is no more to it raini...
Comments